My take on why gun-restriction works in Europe but not in the US

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was reading the usual articles by both sides in Australia guns made people safer and cut down on crime. That not having guns made people safer. I had taken statistics in college.

When you looked at the numbers for before and after neither side had any right to claim either was right.

As said by Al there is no proof that having them or proof that not having them makes a big difference.

I live in Texas which is a fairly friendly gun state. Down the road from me is Houston which has a lot of crime. I think they are right up there with New York City which has draconian gun laws. Kind of hard explaining that away

All things being equal the Second Amendment pretty much says it for me. I have a right to defend myself or other people from harm. This is the way it has worked here from the beginning.
 
I don't believe that firearms (those owned by private citizens) make s up a large part of our economy. Military technology perhaps, but nothing I or anyone else can walk into a gun store and buy is playing a huge roll in our economy.
 
Well about 1 million were sold from Jan 2010 to to Jan 2011. That does not include ammo or accesories.

I think federal revenues from firearm and ammo sales rose 45% from 2009-2010. From 1993 to 2008 they went up 6%.
 
British Bobby: I am an ex-pat Canadian, now a US Citizen (since 1970) and I do know the differences between Canadian Law and US Law, especially Washington State Law.

My summer starts with an old saying: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight".

It does not matter if guns are allowed, or restricted, the strong, the greedy and the person that has no general reguard for his fellow man, or their property, will always to attempt to take what he wants from his weaker neighbor. Has happened since Cain in the bible.

It matters not what the weapon is, it could even be a lawyer, but the strong, greedy, unethical individual will always try to take, by force if necessary, what is not his, from those who cannot protect themselves.

Now, consider the looting, assaults, rapes, murders etc in London of late. What was the major problem? The citizenery did not have a way of equalizing the disparity of force. The have been stripped helpless...and then that poor guy that got life in prison for killing a burgler??? Shame on GB! You just created your own problem.

Here in Washington State it is perfectly legal own and carry a firearm (pistol or long gun), no registration, no license required. It is also perfectly legal to shoot (and kill) a burgler. Most people will just hold a burgler for police and not shoot them, but if the burgler makes a bad move,,,he is history, no charge, no questions asked....

Would you like to compare burglery/armed robberies per 100,000 population in WA verse how many burgley/armed robbery per 100,000 in England? Guess who has fewer burglery/armed robberies? WA by a bunch...why? The cost to the burgler is higher, that is, it could cost him his life...that does not happen in England.

Think about the guy in Norway? He gave up instantly to the police when they arrived. Why? he knew he would receive no more than 20 years in prison...why fight it...he wrote his political point in blood, and KNEW he could survive...absolutely NO risk of having his life ended prematurly.
 
So in the UK a 110 woman doesn't need a gun to protect herself from a brutal 230 pound rapist / killer?
In my opinion a taser/stun-gun would be a better choice. easier to use and not risky of killing others in the process.
Click to expand...
Proven time and again... Nothing STOPS a threat like some warm plumbum to the squishy torso or gray matter...
My momma illegally toted a revolver in her purse in Michigan in the late 70's... When asked by hey gal buddy who seen it when mom was payin for groceries... "Why do you have a gun in yer purse?"... Momma said "Nobody ever raped a .38...:D

Proven numerous times... A single shot tazer or a "snub nose" stun gun fail with alarming predictability!

Now back to the thread... I will likely post some more... real soon...;)

Brent
 
Many years ago, I heard a story about a kid walking down the beach with an older man. As they walked, the boy would bend over frequently and pick up one of the many stranded starfish and throw it back into the ocean, thus, saving its life.

The older man said to the boy, "Why do you bother? There are thousands of them and you can't save them all. You're efforts will never make a difference."

The boy reached down and picked up another starfish and perused it for a moment, then tossed it into the water. "It made a difference to THAT one."

The point, of course, is that we attempt to look too frequently at society at large and make our decisions based on statistics or emotion or science or beliefs or what have you.

Where we should focus our attention, though, is on individuals. If a 120 pound woman can fight off a 250 pound woman because she has a gun, THAT, my friends, is why it is worth having permissible gun laws.

Beyond the individual, there is little we can do to assume much about the effectiveness of gun laws or the lack and lack thereof. While it is anecdotal both ways, even at the individual level, try asking the woman who defended herself with a gun whether or not she was glad to be able to defend herself.

That, my friends, is where I find my answers and my peace.

--Wag--
 
British Bobby said:
...This is my take on why stricter gun-laws in the US would NOT help decrease gun-crime particularly....
Click to expand...
I submit, sir, that it is a grievous error to focus only on gun crime. The real issue is violent crime, and there is reason to believe that in fact the rate of violent crime in the UK is actually higher than that in the US. See this article.

Granted, it's a few years old, but is there any solid basis upon which to conclude that the situation has changed appreciably? The article is also consistent with the Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the University of Leiden and the study Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 conducted by the US Bureaus of Justice Statistics.

In the meantime, the crime rate in the US continues to decline. See this thread for a discussion.

So the focus on gun crime is both disingenuous and a red herring.

For an excellent study of the rise in violent crime, and the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002). It's well worth reading.

So sir, you're welcome to your opinion, but it appears to be inapposite, ill formed and unsubstantiated. Can you give us any good reason to pay attention to it?

British Bobby said:
So in the UK a 110 woman doesn't need a gun to protect herself from a brutal 230 pound rapist / killer?
Click to expand...
In my opinion a taser/stun-gun would be a better choice. easier to use and not risky of killing others in the process.
Click to expand...
I find that an interesting statement from someone who claims to be a trained law enforcement officer.

In most cases, use of less lethal weapons, e. g., tasers, pepper spray, bean bag munitions, etc., is considered appropriate by law enforcement only if (1) officers are present in sufficient number to take appropriate further action if the less lethal approach fails; or (2) the use of lethal force would not under the circumstances be justified. In any case, such devices have an appreciable failure rate and/or there use can easily be botched, so it is questionable if a slight woman should be expected to rely on such a device when facing a high probability of an immediate and potentially lethal attack -- at least without readily available lethal force as back-up.
 
Violent crime is an issue far too complex to be boiled down simply to firearm restrictions when examining different countries.
Click to expand...
Webley nailed it. I was in Vancouver when a large study was done comparing crime between that city and neighboring Seattle. The study mentioned that Seattle had a higher rate of suicides involving handguns, and that such a finding "proved" that lax gun laws led to suicide.

Even the most liberal Canadian professors I spoke with called shenanigans on that conclusion. There are simply too many differences in culture and demographics. In addition, Vancouver was not the conduit for opium and its derivatives in the way Seattle was.

Take Denmark, where I lived for a time. It's a largely homogenous and devout society, with a strong familial bond and a shared heritage. The standard of living is high, and the population is somewhat small.

(They also still respect jazz. The real stuff, not that David Sanborn drivel. I really think that has something to do with a culture's well-being :))

Compare that with the staggering number of contrasting cultures, belief systems, disparity of wealth, and dense population that we have in New York city. Is New York more violent than Copenhagen? You betcha. But it's not because of the mere presence of guns.
 
At last some common sense in Ireland

Forget Ireland's gun and knife ban laws. Ireland has come around with a bit of common sense. My son lives in Dublin and informed me that, until recently, a citizen must retreat if faced by a threat in their home. Force cannot be used to protect yourself, family, and home. If an intruder is injured the person protecting their property and life will be liable. Now legislation has passed stating that force may be used against an intruder if there is no retreat pathway. In a home this does not apply to a ground floor where you must retreat, but to the second story or basement.

Friends in the UK, one a retired London police officer, have told me that bans of handguns and knives have lead to more physical violence because bad people don't abide by legalities.

What is the answer or response to any form of violence? There is none. Within human history we have advanced in science and technology yet we continue to remain static in maintaining tribal differences and the distribution of human characteristics ranging from the good of Mahatma Gandhi to the evil of Stalin. Most of us fit somewhere between Gandhi and Stalin.
 
BB

Would you say that the number of violent crimes in the UK are high?

If your honest answer to that question is yes, I have to ask you what difference does it make if the violent crime is being committed with a gun, bomb, knife, machete or baseball bat.

People in your country are no different than people in this country in the respect that criminals are going to be criminals in whatever part of the world they live in. There are criminals all over the world.

Knowing that and given the fact that you are in LE in a country that has forcefully disarmed its citizens, I have to ask you if you've ever been to a very violent crime scene in your country in which you've looked at the grotesque aftermath and the thought ran through your mind, "I wonder if that poor victim/victims would be alive today if they would have been armed and had a chance to defend themselves?"

FORGIVE ME IF I'M WRONG, but it sounds as though you are a proponent of the anti-gun laws in the UK and feel that the citizens of the UK have no right to bear arms.

Please don't take this offensively, but you spoke of personal morality and not believing in certain things a few posts back. It behooves me that someone not believing in killing, would have beliefs that an innocent citizen should not be allowed to have the means to keep themselves and their families from being killed.

Can you explain that mindset, cause thoughs kind of thoughts, simply put, just don't compute.

Again, I know/believe and commend you when you talk about your moral values and know you don't believe in killing...so please don't take my post offensively. I just seriously don't understand your line of thought!
 
But I'm still skeptical about how an army of untrained can effectively counter and subdue a trained and well armed army.
Click to expand...

You miss history class, buddy?

The USA was basically a bunch of RAG TAG farmers with guns in their hands and burlap sacks on their feet when we sent the redcoats home for more tea!

It wasn't our ability to form a line of armed gents for the "volley" of lead balls that lead to victory...

It was our hunting ability that put our men in the trees, fence rows and between buildings waging guerrilla warfare against the most powerful army on earth that beat england from our shores...

Same would go for a euro population that had 200+ years of gun ownership and hunting to survive...

Is that fair, do you think? BB doesn't make the laws in the UK any more than you make the laws here
Click to expand...
No he doesn't but I would give the same argument to a fellow countryman who thinks as BB does...
So in the UK a 110 woman doesn't need a gun to protect herself from a brutal 230 pound rapist / killer?
In my opinion a taser/stun-gun would be a better choice. easier to use and not risky of killing others in the process.
Click to expand...
Easier to use? How do you figure? Easier to use than a 6 shot revolver? Easier to use on 3 attackers than a 6 shooter? How about accidentally dropped in a bucket of water? Then retrieved by the 110 pound female? Would you rather your momma/wife/sister pull out the stungun/wire fed tazer or a real piece of self defense weaponry?

BB, Most of us American gun owners think a stungun type "less than lethal" item is good for you cops to use rather than kill every punk who resists... But we tend to steer folks from such devices designed to preserve the well being of an attacker who doesn't have the well being of the victim in mind...

Brent
 
There are also some governmental peculiarities at work, I think. European citizens seem (at least to me) to be more accepting of a paternalistic government that has a responsibility to take care of their needs and regulate their behavior than American citizens do - it's not just gun control.

Historically, a paternalistic central government has been difficult (although certainly not impossible) to establish in the United States because of the relationship between the state governments and the federal government. I think that the differences between our rather unique system of somewhat adversarial state and federal governments and the strong European federal governments makes for some misunderstandings about how things "ought" to be.

Of course, having a Constitutional right to own arms sets the bar at a certain level.
 
...gun crime is virtually non-existent compared to other forms of crime.
Click to expand...
For the sake of argument, let's take that point as a given. That still doesn't mean anything unless at least a reasonable number of the following statements are true.

The crime rate overall is reduced compared to the levels of crime in the U.K. before the restrictions were implemented.

The crime rate overall is lower than the levels in the U.S. or in other similar nations where there are no such restrictions.

The violent crime rate is reduced compared to the violent crime levels in the U.K. prior to enacting the restrictions.

The violent crime rate is lower compared to the U.S. or other similar nations with gun-friendly laws.

The murder rate is reduced compared to the murder levels in the U.K. prior to enacting the restrictions.

The murder rate is reduced compared to the U.S. or other similar nations with gun-friendly laws.

If none of those things are true, or even if most of them are false, it really makes no difference if there's no gun crime. There's no practical benefit in reducing one specific type of crime if criminals are still able accomplish their goals via other means.
 
hogdogs posted:

My moma illegally toted a revolver in her purse...
Click to expand...

...and no doubt was not afraid to defend her own regardless of the law of that time.

I've got the old 'topbreak' 32 S&W my grandma toted in the front pocket of her apron from as early as the depression era till she passed.

Today, I'm proud to say my mom (age 77), sister, daughter, three sister-n-laws and two wives of nephews all have their ccp's.

Not only have the men , but the women in this country were/are also instrumental in the fight that has changed the laws and insured our RTKBA. Something that was once in danger in the US and had it not been for US citizens taking a stand against some of the powers-t-be, we probably wouldn't have the gun rights we have today or the rights we're going to gain in the future.
 
...and no doubt was not afraid to defend her own regardless of the law of that time.
Click to expand...
With a quickness... with a quickness buddy!

She would first exude some severely advanced diplomacy and tact... if that failed she was one ready woman!

It was her that explained the whole "turn the other cheek" deal... She said "But son, you only have two cheeks and you ain't no punchin' bag... Only turn it once and then you go all country boy on 'em...":D

When it came to her offspring (I really was a step child but don't think that gave a person a free pass)... I pity the poor soul who really crossed her. If anyone thought she was a heavy handed parent... they oughta worry what she was capable of with a person she cared naught for.

She really wasn't the "gunny" type at all but rise in violent crime against gals had her ask dad to teach her to shoot with his Ruger gen I .22 pistol and then she "acquired" the .38... Shot it 6-12-18 times (no memory of more) and in it went in her purse... come to think of it I think she started with one box of shells... a 20/25 count or a fifty count... she fired all but 6 in practice and the last 6 were in the pistol...

My point? Simple. Not every self defense minded American is a devoted gun lover. Some just want to live.

Brent
 
While looking for my remote for the TV, I caught a news story of a guy dressed only in his briefs wonder down an English street bashing out windows with a shovel. All caught on CCV [street cams] when the police showed up he gave up right away. The announcer then said he had 273 previous convictions. IMHO that is 270 too many to be out of jail, or prison. So long as the courts practice catch and release social reform instead of justice that will happen. With or without guns some folk just belong behind bars.
 
I Will ask the question again British bobby. You stated that the metropolitan police had basic firearms training this is news to me, when did the met start giving basic firearms training to officers. A failure to reply will leave me thinking you are making it up as you go along.

As for armed response units the clue is in the name response usually to late.

Unarmed police came across Derrick Bird on his shooting spree in cumbria but had to withdraw alloying bird to continue with his shooting spree.

If it had of happened in N Ireland he would have being stopped by the first officers came across him.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/10214661
 
Last edited:
The crux of the issue is really much deeper than guns. The heart of the issue is the rights of the public vs. the rights of the individual. Proponents of gun-control expouse the supposed right of the public to live in a crime-free society and tell us that strict gun control laws work towards that goal. As has been pointed out, however, gun control laws cannot be demonstrated to have a meaningful correlation to the overall violent crime rate.

Opponents of strict gun control laws, including most of us here, look at it from this perspective: regardless of how strict laws are and the severity of punishments for breaking said laws, violent crime still occurs. I am a firm proponent of individual right as well as individual responsibility. I understand that no one, including the police, can protect me from violence 100% of the time. As such, I believe that the ultimate responsibility for one's own personal safety rests upon the individual. Because I bear ultimate responsibility for my own safety, I should be able to own and use the most effective tools to guarantee that safety. By removing or severely restricting my access to firearms, which are the most effective means of self-defense, the government has stripped away a good deal of my individual rights while providing collective rights that are questionable at best.
 
British Bobby,

Perhaps the London riots have offered the UK citizens a chance to do it right. Instead of deploring gun ownership you might now start a petition to do something about your rights.

It should begin with:
When in the course of human events…..
 
IMO, when you strip or have a hand in stripping a person of their basic rights of survival, if something happens to that person, you have a portion of their blood on your hands.

That also goes for government passing laws restricting the people they govern, stripping them of the rights to do the same. The enforcers of these laws hired by the government have to accept a portion of the victims blood also.

BB,

I asked if you had ever witnessed a violent crime scene in which you looked at the grotesque aftermath of the innocent victim/victims and asked yourself if things may have been different had the victims had the opportunity to be armed and defend themselves.

Knowing you are not obligated to publicly answer that question, if you have witnessed this, or in the future, you have the misfortune of witnessing a scenario such as this, I would ask that somewhere along the line you take the time to at least think about this discussion. Surely after witnessing something like this, you'll have many sleepless nights for years to come. That would be an excellent time for you to think about your stance on restrictive gun laws for good citizens in your community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top